• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

FLEX Turn Lanes (FTL) and Related Projects - Development and Support

Started by Tarkus, August 01, 2009, 09:36:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tarkus

Are you referring to the slip lanes?  An image or two would help in diagnosing this.

If there is indeed a rotation issue, that means it's a RUL-related issue and it can't be fixed until the next controller gets released, and that probably won't happen until the next NAM release.

-Alex

DAB_City

^ I remember you saying something about missing NWM transitions and needing to rewrite the RUL? If you have the time, perhaps a NAM 30.1 would be in order &idea
Hello SimCity Devotees! If you want to find out more about me, why not visit my profile? Free drinks and biscuits, if that would tempt anyone ;)

http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/user/360022-dab-city/

Tarkus

Quote from: DAB_City on January 28, 2012, 01:08:47 AM
^ I remember you saying something about missing NWM transitions and needing to rewrite the RUL? If you have the time, perhaps a NAM 30.1 would be in order &idea

I wouldn't anticipate a NAM Version 30.1.  There are a few LHD things that are in need of attention (which JD has been fixing), and there might be a patch on that front--but that won't require a full on repacking of the NAM. 

The missing Road-to-NMAVE-4 puzzle piece transition is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (especially since there's a DragTrans that mimics it), and we don't have confirmation yet that there is indeed a rotation problem with any TuLEPs.

Additionally, the NAM itself is in a state of flux with regards to its file architecture, with the shift from the so-called "modular NAM" to the "monolithic NAM", and the complete re-coding of the RHW as part of the Project 0E efforts (which at present, is going smoother than anticipated).  It wouldn't really make sense in light of that.

-Alex

DAB_City

I guess that figure, what with all the other work that is going on... Oh, and is the EAVE-4 (or whatever its abbreviation is) supposed to be compatible with TLA-5, or just AVE-4? This should probably go in the NWM forum, but it seems like a TuLEP question as well! I just don't understand what the middle lane is supposed to do :o
Hello SimCity Devotees! If you want to find out more about me, why not visit my profile? Free drinks and biscuits, if that would tempt anyone ;)

http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/user/360022-dab-city/

Tarkus

EAVE-4's designed for both, as they have the same width/layout.  The middle lane up there is basically just a paved median reservation.  The double solid yellow line indicates that it is not to be used as a center turning lane or driven on by regular traffic.  It's more common to see a setup like that here in the western US than to have a concrete median on an overpass, it's not proven to have any real safety issues (on the contrary--it's very useful when an emergency vehicle needs to get through), particularly as the design speed on such approaches is usually 45mph (~72.6km/h) or less, and almost never over 55mph (~88.7km/h).  Plus if the overpass is to be reconfigured at any point (e.g. into a turn lane if an interchange later gets reconfigured), rather than ripping out a bunch of curbing (and having to take care not to damage the structural integrity), it's just a matter of repainting.

The concrete medians only show up on older overpasses here, or in more extreme situations where there needs to be some very specific channelization.

-Alex

DAB_City

So is it possible to connect TLA-5 to EAVE-4? I see how it's useful though for future upgrades and such :)
Hello SimCity Devotees! If you want to find out more about me, why not visit my profile? Free drinks and biscuits, if that would tempt anyone ;)

http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/user/360022-dab-city/

Tarkus

Technically, you'd need to stick a Draggable Transition in there at present, hooking the AVE-4 stubs into a TLA-5 at the ground-level end.  It's easy enough to produce a version of the Ground-to-Elevated AVE-4 transitions with Road stubs on the end for direct TLA-5 connection, however.

-Alex

ivo_su

Can I get some clarification on technical compilation of pieces TuLeps OWR networks. How could the operation of traffic lights and crossing mode for each band? I know how to do file path with stop points, but I have no idea how it will work in stages and press a certain time? What have I done  dase in order to properly pass traffic from each band with a traffic lights system?



- Ivo

Tarkus

The easiest way to get networks without native stop point support to have stop point/synchronized signal functionality is on the RUL0 end, by using a dual CheckType to graft on another network that does natively support stop points.  The signal timing is actually controlled by the Automata Simulator.  The default setting is 0.5 seconds for Streets, 6 seconds for Roads, and 8 seconds for Avenues (note that this is vastly accelerated compared to RL signal phasing).  The properties controlling it are the Road Go Time, Avenue Go Time and Street Go Time properties. 

The ordering of phases is dependent on the directionality of the paths and stop points.  There appears to be an .exe control that sets out two different phases: North/South traffic and East/West traffic.  This gets to be problematic with diagonal intersections, and many Maxis intersections do not (and possibly cannot) function properly in this regard.  There appears to be no way to fix this, unless you go to pseudo-synchronous phasing (not actually tied to the stop points, but animated such that the phases correspond to the time intervals specified in the Automata Simulator), or completely asynchronous (not tied to the stop points or the Automata Simulator at all)--in both cases (and especially the latter), there's a good chance that automata behavior will not match the phase of the signal (cars stopping on green, or going on red), though they provide more freedom in terms of signal animations.

-Alex

ivo_su

So if I understand everything correctly, it will be enough when I do file paths, for example for OWR-3 I can put one point stop  at the end of each path. Thus the admission of traffic will be embedded in RUL0 the next stage. I still  have no complete idea of ​​what will be the overall nomenclature of a piece of OWR networks and their full interaction with  all other networks of  NWM in the form of T-junctions and "+"  intersections. I guess  that NAM needs to be used as little as possible in number and  most effective combinations  like puzzle pieces. I wonder RUL0 that is also used for starting and stopping traffic. Until now  I thought RUL's play a role only for rotating rings puzzle pieces.

- Ivo

Swordmaster

I don't know if this has been brought up or considered before, but shouldn't it be possible to make a U-turn at intersections? It's possible in the standard maxis AVExAVE intersection, but not with the TULEPs.

Cheers,
Willy

nosferatu247

Quote from: Swordmaster on February 12, 2012, 06:53:28 PM
I don't know if this has been brought up or considered before, but shouldn't it be possible to make a U-turn at intersections? It's possible in the standard maxis AVExAVE intersection, but not with the TULEPs.

Cheers,
Willy
Just sayin', but most of the real-world intersections I've seen with dedicated turn lanes do not allow U-turns, simply because of how dangerous it can be.

mike3775

Quote from: nosferatu247 on February 13, 2012, 07:47:46 AM
Quote from: Swordmaster on February 12, 2012, 06:53:28 PM
I don't know if this has been brought up or considered before, but shouldn't it be possible to make a U-turn at intersections? It's possible in the standard maxis AVExAVE intersection, but not with the TULEPs.

Cheers,
Willy
Just sayin', but most of the real-world intersections I've seen with dedicated turn lanes do not allow U-turns, simply because of how dangerous it can be.

My area it depends on the situation.  Ft. Wayne(3 hours east of me) allows them at every intersection, because most avenues have a wall going down the center, so the only way to get to those places on the opposite side is to do a U turn at the next intersection.

While Valparaiso(10 minutes south) does not allow U turns at most intersections(have signs stating so), but they also tend to have a suicide lane.

jondor

In game terms, it has to do with the way the paths are built.  In the default Maxis Ave x Ave intersection cars turning from North to West for example, turn from the northeast tile (in RHD) and as they cross over the northwest tile, they pass by the analogous turning path that allows West to South turns.

The TuLEPs are built differently to try and simulate the capacity increase gained by a dedicated left turn lane in the real world.  Left turning cars (again RHD) actually cross over to the very edge of the left hand tile of the intersection and turn from there.  The paths are built to guide the cars on a realistic arc instead of the sharp 90 degree turn of the default Maxis intersections.

As for the real world, U-turns are generally allowed in Oregon anywhere it's safe to do so and so long as a sign does not specifically forbid it.  The only problem is when the you and the police officer have a different opinion of 'safe to do so'.  Some intersections (especially on limited access state highways) specifically allow U-turns from left turn lanes.
All new animated railroad crossing props for networks of all sizes! (Phase 1 complete)--> http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=13209

Mostly writing pony stories on FimFiction.net, but Cities: Skylines is my new best friend.  Anything and everything I made for SimCity 4 is fair game for use and distribution.

Tarkus

↑OR-99W in Sherwood immediately comes to mind . . . I actually had to do one for my driver's license test way back when.  Actually, it's the only time I've ever had to do a U-Turn at an intersection, come to think of it.

My plan with TuLEPs is to eventually have different lane control variations . . . a U-Turn-allowing piece could appear as part of that.

I think part of the reason U-Turns are such a big part of the Maxis Avenue network, however, have to do with its default design--beyond the path overlap that jondor pointed out, there's no turn lanes and it's essentially necessary in order to access zones on the other side in many situations.  They're not quite as critical with a TLA-5.

-Alex

jondor

How did you know that was the exact stretch of road I was thinking about? :P  :D
All new animated railroad crossing props for networks of all sizes! (Phase 1 complete)--> http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=13209

Mostly writing pony stories on FimFiction.net, but Cities: Skylines is my new best friend.  Anything and everything I made for SimCity 4 is fair game for use and distribution.

Tarkus

Quote from: jondor on February 13, 2012, 04:29:57 PM
How did you know that was the exact stretch of road I was thinking about? :P  :D

Lucky hunch. :D  It's one of the few spots on this side of the state that I'm aware of with frequent "U Turn Permitted" signage at intersections.

-Alex

Kitsune

all of our intersections in Toronto allow U-turns unless theres a sign posted not do so. Google Maps takes way to much advantage of this and often causes confusion for tourists driving in this city.
~ NAM Team Member

Swordmaster

Quote from: Tarkus on February 13, 2012, 03:58:45 PM
↑OR-99W in Sherwood immediately comes to mind . . . I actually had to do one for my driver's license test way back when.  Actually, it's the only time I've ever had to do a U-Turn at an intersection, come to think of it.

My plan with TuLEPs is to eventually have different lane control variations . . . a U-Turn-allowing piece could appear as part of that.

I think part of the reason U-Turns are such a big part of the Maxis Avenue network, however, have to do with its default design--beyond the path overlap that jondor pointed out, there's no turn lanes and it's essentially necessary in order to access zones on the other side in many situations.  They're not quite as critical with a TLA-5.

-Alex

I was thinking strictly in terms of playability, as I recently replaced a lot of intersections with TULEPs and the commute times went through the roof, with sims making crazy cross-town trips just to go to work around the corner. A separate U-turn allowing piece would indeed sound reasonable.

Cheers,
Willy

mike3775

Is there anyway to make it so that when you go to plop the Tulep piece that the game will realize exactly what is supposed to go on, because the way it is now, I am continually bulldozing things over and over()to the point I say F it and give up trying to plop the pieces I want) because unless the ground is perfectly flat(which I like to have hills in my cities) you cannot tell the orientation of alot of the pieces when placing the Tuleps?